BF 2042
BF 2042
Someone with an i5 10600K and RTX 2080 at 1440p is using it, and it seems to achieve around 90 FPS.
Hey Zerk,
I don't have that exact setup, but my own configuration with 5600x and 3060ti (around 2080 super levels) handles it well, maintaining high performance at roughly 80-100 FPS, depending on the map. Adjusting game settings doesn't significantly improve frame rates. Our systems are quite similar in performance, especially with your OC CPU and 2080.
The game seems poorly optimized overall, even after all updates aimed at boosting FPS and reducing stutter. TBH, I've taken a break until more improvements come out. Back on BFV, it's still a better experience despite the cheating.
Some visuals are decent, and in certain situations they look much better than BF V, but the game mechanics and glitches are quite disappointing.
Hey Zerk,
I can't attest to that exact config, but my own config with 5600x and 3060ti (roughly about 2080 super levels) runs it on high at or about 80-100FPS, map dependent. Tweaking in game settings doesn't yield too much more by way of frames. Our systems would be close enough in terms of performance , with your OC CPU and 2080.
The game IMO, is poorly optimized and that's even with all the updates that were supposed to help FPS/stuttering etc. TBH, Ive stepped away for now, until it gets some more updates. Back on BFV, and despite all the cheating, it's still a better game.
Some of the graphical goodness is nice, and in some cases looks a lot better than BF V, but the bad game mechanics along with the glitches you can expect from a new game, mean BF V is much more polished (which you might expect after being available so long)
Also, some weird GPU usage going on. Even when I set my in game settings to high or Ultra, it still hardly uses more than 80% GPU usage. I'm still scratching my head to figure out what settings to change that might max it, aside from DLSS or RT. Bit odd.
Don't get me started on the bullet spread or 'bloom'. Its shocking. For any decent FPS player, the spread on most weapons means that hitting the same target twice is almost impossible, so kills become quite difficult in comparison to other games. There has been some improvement, but still shocking.
Tom's feedback was quite insightful, he mentioned using a 9900k and others he's seen. With a decent GPU you'll typically achieve 60 FPS or higher across most settings, and performance drops are mainly due to CPU issues. High-end GPUs only offer marginal improvement. The 10600k should suffice for good performance. I'm also keeping an eye on some bug fixes, though I don't mind the BF glitches much right now—they'll become more noticeable when standard gameplay becomes repetitive. Additionally, the custom server feature hasn't been well received.
I believe I can manage because there are only two remaining matches. Racing and an extremely old game, Ultima Online.
Editing 128 players seems like a lot.
Original BF1942 and Vietnam versions accommodated 64 players, possibly up to 128 with custom servers (I remember I used to manage on one for years, getting old). When it moved to the console, they reduced the player count for better performance and took time to adjust back. I’m interested in seeing the maps—those were another issue on consoles, as the scale was limited and the terrain became too fast due to modern elements. Battlefield 1 struggled with WW1 accuracy; everything felt like a prototype or an overly close match for contemporary weapons, which clashed with its intended look.
I have a 3700x with a 6900xt. On medium it’s about 140-160, possibly 110-140 on high. Still very choppy for the first few minutes. Game-wise I’m really let down. I was hoping for something comparable to BF3 or BF4 but better. Got something much worse. It’s buggy, unstable, and lacks many features it should have.
I was playing COD Cold War with friends and didn’t enjoy it much except for the zombies and the VoIP was great for chatting. That game also had some bugs, but its character movement and controls are much better…and the VoIP works well.